I’m wary of rules that purport to reflect how players currently think and feel about something, yet which use stats which aren’t directly editable by those players. Locking it to particular game actions can only put it out of step with how we’re actually feeling.

There’s nothing stopping anyone right now from saying “Trigon, get planning” or “Brendan, take that photo”, and anyone who declined would be rightly regarded with some suspicion. (But Brendan declining on the grounds that it’s not possible to take photos yet would, under this rule, give him 1 Suspicion which no player actually felt. Trigon switching to Planning and then switching to Sabotage the next morning, before we could call a meeting, would earn 0 Suspicion but some players might feel it.)

[Kevan]

That works good in theory, but if you remember the Moby Dick Dynasty, we couldn’t ever agree on a commander, and even when we had one, organizing a group that ostentatiously has one goal with hidden agendas and no mechanism for balancing the agendas proved very unwieldy. This mechanism focuses attention on one specific player and action at a time, and kills the default “Do Nothing” Action.

As for Suspicion being a stat that purports how currently players think, I’m open to alternatives. Its very real as an abstraction of how many times you have denied being asked to advance the cause. Its not supposed to be one players’s suspicion of another or even the overall suspicion of the group but the ostentatious suspicion.

If there isn’t a mechanism like that, a mechanism is needed to call out, attack, or otherwise penalize someone you believe to be a traitor.

Ah, if you were intending it as the opinion of a wider group of activists who aren’t the players (and who can be easily gulled into believing that Brendan is a traitor for not taking an impossible photo, or that Trigon did a good thing by flipping to Planning for a few hours), then that makes more sense, so long as we’re careful that it doesn’t drift into representing how the actual players feel.